Group C - Kenya, New Zealand, Sri Lanka

[Gilly Fan]

Another wicket.

Wide and a stumping.

Obuya goes for 18.

7/41

Bowled him. Vettori gets Obanda for 4. Bowled.
Pretty crap.

 

[harishankar]

Disgraceful performance by Kenya. I think this is going to raise some questions about this format of the game. In ODIs team have a fair chance to recover from early setbacks. In 20-20 it looks like we'll have a *lot* of one sided games because it's just too short and batsmen just have to throw their bats at everything no matter how many wickets go down...

 

[irottev]

WOOOO A SIX!!! Amazing stuff. He can open in the next match.

4 off Vettori. Wow.

Disgraceful performance by Kenya. I think this is going to raise some questions about this format of the game. In ODIs team have a fair chance to recover from early setbacks. In 20-20 it looks like we'll have a *lot* of one sided games because it's just too short and batsmen just have to throw their bats at everything no matter how many wickets go down...

I disagree. This is the only match I can recall which has been a whitewash. Same would have happened in a 50 over game.

It raises the question of whether Kenya and Scotland (who may perform better) should be at this tournament.

Also early starts could be another issue.

Best figures in Twenty/20 for Gillespie? Lowest Twenty/20 total. Bond's is the most economical for someone who bowled all 4. Probably least 6's and 4's. Martin and Vettori are probably next on the economy list.

Poor Kenya.

 

[harishankar]

I disagree. This is the only match I can recall which has been a whitewash. Same would have happened in a 50 over game.

It raises the question of whether Kenya and Scotland (who may perform better) should be at this tournament.

Also early starts could be another issue.

Although it was Kenya, I still think that the 50-over game gives teams a chance of making a comeback, while in 20-20, if you lose early wickets you have no time to recover. And low scores are virtually undefendable in this format.

I also think that the team batting second has a huge advantage in this format of the game == they know exactly how much to chase while the team batting first has to go hell for leather all the time. which is just not fair.

 

[Abhas]

73. The lowest ever Twenty20 score, beating the 70 by Australia against England in Southampton

lol...

 

[irottev]

I disagree, putting a large total on the board is a major advantage. Setting takes the pressure away.

And I think teams can recover from early wickets. If teams go out and play silly shots early and get themselves out, they deserve it. If they play sensibly for a few overs to get their eyes in, they shouldn't get out really.

 

[harishankar]

I disagree, putting a large total on the board is a major advantage. Setting takes the pressure away.

And I think teams can recover from early wickets. If teams go out and play silly shots early and get themselves out, they deserve it. If they play sensibly for a few overs to get their eyes in, they shouldn't get out really.

Where are the overs to "play yourself in"? if you play a few dot balls in this format, there is enormous pressure to score runs.

And how does the team batting first decide on what is a good score especially after losing early wickets?

We saw that even 200+ is gettable by the team batting second. That puts the team batting first at a huge disadvantage, no matter how you put it.

Anyway Kenya were crap in this format. Looks like they are the team least prepared for T20.

You can keep disagreeing with me all you like. and I will keep disagreeing with you...

 

[cricketmad09]

Kenya 73
C Obuya 18(25)
T Odoyo 18(26)
M Gillespie 4-7(2.5)
S Bond 2-12(4)

 

[irottev]

lol,

South Africa were helped getting that score because of (aside from Fidel Edwards) the bowlers were terrible. Wides galore! Also the catching/fielding was bad.

South Africa took 2 overs to get themselves in. Go and watch Smith and Gibbs. There isn't any risks taken.

Recovering from 4 ducks from the top 4 isn't going to be easy in any form of the game. Even test matches, you have probably knocked a few hundred off your score.

 

[cricketmad09]

Kenya were very very ordinary. They looked like the under 12's playing the under 18's.

Those 2 tailenders were the only blokes who actually looked half decent.

 

[harishankar]

lol,

South Africa were helped getting that score because of (aside from Fidel Edwards) the bowlers were terrible. Wides galore!

South Africa took 2 overs to get themselves in. Go and watch Smith and Gibbs. There isn't any risks taken.

Recovering from 4 ducks from the top 4 isn't going to be easy in any form of the game. Even test matches, you have probably knocked a few hundred off your score.

I'm not saying recovering isn't impossible. But in Test cricket, you have 5 days of cricket and 2 chances to make amends with the bat. In ODI cricket you have 50 overs of play and you can take at least 20 overs in the middle to stabilize the innings. The dynamics are completely different and your comparison doesn't hold water.

Also the batsmen in a 50-over game wouldn't have felt compelled to keep going for runs in spite of losing two early wickets. So they wouldn't have lost more than two wickets. They could have stablized the innings. Whereas in 20-20 you cannot do that and you end up with a ridiculous score.

In 20-20 the whole game is over in three hours or so. It's just a cheap exhibition of cricket. I think we need some other innovation which will make T20 a lot fairer to both teams.

 

[irottev]

I've always wanted Jason Gillespie to play for us. LOL. (THis is in response to Rameez Raja calling Mark Gillespie, Jason Gillespie, lol.)

I'm not saying recovering isn't impossible. But in Test cricket, you have 5 days of cricket and 2 chances to make amends with the bat. In ODI cricket you have 50 overs of play and you can take at least 20 overs in the middle to stabilize the innings. The dynamics are completely different and your comparison doesn't hold water.

In 20-20 the whole game is over in three hours or so.

Well there is always a simple way to prevent the problem. Thats don't watch Twenty/20 cricket.

The good sides still win games, the good players still get runs and wickets. You can still play a proper innings and get 200. Watch Ponting in the first ever one. He played normally for 98 and Aussies got 200.

My point is, the players have the opportunity to prevent themselves getting into a position where they're 1-4, if they choose to play silly shots and dig themselves into a hole it's their faults. Australia recovered from a terrible start against us in the Warmups Gilly and Hayden out in the first over. Hodge soon followed. Symonds and Hussey then recovered them.

You havn't seen enough games to claim sides can't recover. You shouldn't be basing it on a weak side like Kenya either.

I do agree with you to an extent. But I don't think it;s a concern.

 

[cricketmad09]

Where are the overs to "play yourself in"? if you play a few dot balls in this format, there is enormous pressure to score runs.

And how does the team batting first decide on what is a good score especially after losing early wickets?

We saw that even 200+ is gettable by the team batting second. That puts the team batting first at a huge disadvantage, no matter how you put it.

Anyway Kenya were crap in this format. Looks like they are the team least prepared for T20.

You can keep disagreeing with me all you like. and I will keep disagreeing with you...

The mainly problem associated with batting 2nd is the mental side. You lose wickets because you quite often don't play your natural game.

But thats the batsmens problem and they need to get over that.

 

[angryangy]

It's ridiculous to suggest Kenya could have posted a decent total in either format after being 4 wickets down so early.

In the unlikely event that this happens to a better team, it would be left to 5 & 6 to bat for at most 18 overs. With discipline, most quality lower middle orders could play conservatively for a few overs, before throwing the bat and posting a reasonable total. Again, ridiculous to expect such coordination from Kenya.

In an ODI, those late batsmen would need to see out 30-40 overs. They would have to make twice as many decisions. They could play defensively, but there's little doubt that they would be worn down, instead of going down swinging.

T20 actually favours those players because most likely they are batting at 5/6/7 because they can score quickly, rather than bat all day.

 

[harishankar]

Well there is always a simple way to prevent the problem. Thats don't watch Twenty/20 cricket.

Well, i watched it out of curiosity but it looks like I'll be following your advice if mismatches continue to be the trend.

The good sides still win games, the good players still get runs and wickets. You can still play a proper innings and get 200. Watch Ponting in the first ever one. He played normally for 98 and Aussies got 200.

It's more like a lottery in my opinion. True, if the teams are perfectly matched, but even then the team batting second has a big advantage.

My point is, the players have the opportunity to prevent themselves getting into a position where they're 1-4, if they choose to play silly shots and dig themselves into a hole it's their faults. Australia recovered from a terrible start against us in the Warmups Gilly and Hayden out in the first over. Hodge soon followed. Symonds and Hussey then recovered them.

The problem is that in T20 you hardly have time to get "set". Playing 4-5 overs to get 20-30 runs still condemns your side to a relatively low score. And as I said, you haven't addressed my point that lower scores are virtually undefendable in this format. The team batting second can avoid so many risks that the team batting first has to necessarily take to set a target. And that seems quite unfair to me.

Losing 4 early wickets is not the cause of the problem as you suggest in this case, it's the effect of playing T20. In ODIs, after losing two wickets, the team batting first can actually close shop for a while and accumulate runs rather than continue playing stupidly.

You havn't seen enough games to claim sides can't recover. You shouldn't be basing it on a weak side like Kenya either.

I think I've seen enough... :